Rothberg and physicist Max Tegmark, who is based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, have enrolled about 400 mathematicians and theoretical physicists from top-ranked US universities...Critics say that the sizes of these studies are too small to yield meaningful results for such complex traits.
I'm not sure who's right, Rothberg, or his critics. In any event, his should exclude either his genes or theirs.
I wonder how much they'd charge to fix my cat's smell? (She's out of warranty.)
That's a nice offer but my floppy drive never grew beyond 5-1/4". Anyhow, pretty much all of my floppy drive is gone by now...
Glad there's someone else out there who can relate! I actually had a Superboard II, which was the Challenger 1P without a case, as you may recall. Years later, I bought a C4P for cheap at a hamfest. Also, I may have the most complete set of Ohio Scientific documentation still in existence. (It's nice to have something to brag about, even if nobody cares.)
Before you ask, none of my Ohio Scientifics are for sale.
I'd like to hear from more people with smart watches who are happy with them, to better understand the appeal.
Hey, I really like my new smart watch! Now, I don't have to take my phone out of my pocket to know what time it is.
and no time was there testing or a ramp up of opening up the site to a few people and then allowing more people access as they work out the bugs
See Gall's law.
If you found the article worthless, you pass. If you found the dancing letters in the video entertaining, you also pass.
I was surprised when I visited there many years ago that it's located on the famed Wilshire Blvd, near the prestigious Rodeo Drive. Contrary to conventional belief, my theory is that sabre-toothed tigers were attracted there not by prey that was already stuck in the tar, but by luxury handbags.
It's nice to hear that there still are folks who look only at growth and ignore valuation (which, when done properly, includes growth as a factor). Please accept my apologies in advance for picking your pocket.
Although Amazon is a great business, it's a terrible stock. The reason is that its stock price is sky high. Compare Amazon's key statistics with those of Wal-Mart. Compare the "Valuation Measures" of the two, and you'll see two quite different stories.
Although the two businesses may seem quite different - notably by Wal-Mart being primarily a brick-and-mortar and Amazon being online - I believe there are more similarities than differences: both are retailers that operate on a massive scale, with highly efficient distribution, and sell to customers at the lowest possible price. And of course, Wal-Mart even sells online, with delivery to home or pickup at the nearest store.
Investors are taking on faith that Amazon's growth in revenue will eventually turn into growth in profits. The author of the linked article seems to believe it, and suggests that those of us who are skeptical just don't get it. However, he admits in the article:
Part of this problem comes from the limited visibility into the dynamics of its business finances. Why doesn't Amazon break out more detail in its financial reporting to help the external world understand all these intricacies? How many subscribers to Amazon Prime, how many Kindles have sold, what's the net income from different lines of business, how much of its asset base investment is for fulfillment centers versus technology infrastructure for AWS?
There may be solid business reasons why Amazon doesn't provide that, but from an investment point of view, a stock with a high valuation whose financials can't be fully understood is the very model of "speculation", as defined by Benjamin Graham, the dean of value investors. Those who invest in Amazon may eventually be rewarded, but the stock market has legions of less-speculative investment opportunities that offer a far better risk/reward ratio. There's no reason for any "intelligent investor" to be involved.
[Disclosure: I have no position in either Amazon or Wal-Mart]
I wonder how these things do under extreme weather conditions, such as ice and snow? Do they still do better than humans?
Years ago, I suddenly hit a patch of black ice and I instinctively steered the wrong way, which only made it worse. I ended up doing a 180 and going over a curb. There wasn't much damage to me or the car, but I was very lucky - a large industrial truck was only about 10 seconds away.
In principle, steering wrong on ice is the sort of mistake that a well-programmed computer wouldn't make. I assume they're trying to account for all situations, but I've never actually seen any coverage about that.
...or, if not actually illegal, it will at least be discouraged for the general population via increased insurance. Maybe you'll be able to drive manually for fun, on occasion, and that won't affect your premiums much.
I predict that one day it will be illegal to drive a car manually. I can't predict exactly when, but I bet some of you will live to see it.
Perhaps the Japanese feel the same way about our domination of baseball.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
